Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important operational behavior: the tool reports examineeSignupDisabled and what that flag means in practice, including its impact on login-required quizzes. It also communicates the implicit 'active tenant' state, adding value beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the flag explanation and a practical caution. Every sentence contributes valuable information; the length is justified by the important operational nuance it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, why it matters, and the key flag to inspect. Combined with the output schema and read-only annotation, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this completelyheb; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. It provides meaningful context about what the returned data represents, which is more useful than mere schema confirmation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'team (tenant) this token is currently operating against,' with the additional scoping note that all write tools default to this tenant. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from tenant-switching tools like switch_active_tenant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete contextual usage: it explains that this is the token's operating context, that write tools default to it, and specifically advises checking the examineeSignupDisabled flag before attributing sign-in problems to a quiz. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.